A unique partnership between a health system’s insurance plan and the Integrative Medicine Department benefits patients and helps control costs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care costs continue to increase, affecting patients and insurance providers. Complementary health approaches are increasingly used to augment traditional medicine, and integrative medicine (IM) incorporates these complementary approaches into traditional patient care. The IM Department was established in our institution in 2004 and now offers a wide range of services to patients. Our institution offers health care coverage to all benefit-eligible hospital personnel and their eligible dependents. The use of IM has had a surprising and beneficial effect on the health care costs of this small, self-insured health plan. We found that the coverage of certain IM modalities for specific conditions had positive clinical results and resulted in significant cost savings to the insurance plan. At the same time, this partnership supports patients by providing appropriate and effective care, and we have seen success in terms of patient recovery and patient satisfaction. Here, we present the history of the relationship between the insurance plan and the IM Department, how the coverage of IM modalities has expanded, and the current practice at our institution. We demonstrate that this innovative relationship has benefitted patients and resulted in cost-savings for the insurance provider. Therefore, this partnership will continue to expand, thus providing patients with a wide range of treatment options and effective care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".